The Seventh Chamber of the Superior Labor Court has not known the appeal brought by a bank Itaú Unibanco SA claiming moral and material damages. A tribute paid by the Bank to employees who have completed 30 years of service in the company motivated the request. The plaintiff felt he was discriminated against by not receiving the award which he said included a gold watch, valued at approximately $ 5 thousand, and actions of the financial institution.
The bank that was away from the company to exercise the office of a trade union leader, complained in 4th Labor Court of Goiânia (GO), the indemnities due to have been passed over the tribute. The judge who reviewed the initial partially granted the request. It ordered the bank to pay only for the material damage suffered, which included the obligation to give a gold watch and bank shares in the amount of three worker's wages. Rejected, however, the request for punitive damages.
Itaú and employee asked the reform of sentencing. The first requesting the removal of condemnation by the damage, the second insisting on punitive damages.
Based on two grounds, the Regional Labor Court of the 18th Region upheld the action of the Bank to exclude the obligation to indemnify. Considered that it was attached to the case file documentation of internal financial institution disciplinasse receiving the honor. The resource bank had only disclosed in a news magazine published by Itaú, which relates the special tribute to the professionals they had completed 30 years of activities.
Another foundation that motivated the decision of Regional, was the fact that the bank, admitted in 1979, was withdrawn from activities since 2002 to hold a position of union leader - setting only 23 years' dedication to the company, "the date that the lawsuit was filed (2011).
TST
Dissatisfied, the worker appealed the TST, batting only plea to the remoteness union license. He argued that he was discriminated against and who is entitled to compensation. Said colleagues in the same situation, received the gold watch and the company's shares on the importance of three salaries. She also emphasized that the time he was licensed to carry warrant union leader can not be disregarded as duty, "because it is the event of interruption of employment."
But the Panel failed to consider the merits of the appeal as it was not known. According to Minister Peter Paul Manus, rapporteur of the case in the Seventh Class, the appellate argument does not hold. "Only the argument that refers to the length of service is that the feature was folded, so even if one of them happens to be desconstituísse, subsist another, not rebutted by the applicant," he said.
He explains that the contested decision is based on grounds independent and autonomous - ie even canceling one another remain (the lack of standard company that guaranteed prize).
As Precedent 23 of TST, "not known resource magazine or embargoes, whether the contested decision resolving the particular item requested by several foundations and jurisprudence transcribed not cover everyone."
The minister's decision is also based on Precedent 422, which states that "no one knows appeal to the TST, the absence of the admissibility requirement enrolled in art. 514, II, CPC, when the reasons for the appellant does not challenge the foundations the contested decision, in terms of what was proposed. "
Accordingly, the appeal was not known, unanimously, by the Class.
Case: RR - 673-72.2011.5.18.0004
The TST has eight judging classes, each consisting of three ministers, with the allocation of resources to analyze magazine, aggravations, bills of review, grievances and resources regimental ordinary injunction. Classes of decisions of the part can still, in some cases, resort to Subsection I Specializing in Individual bargaining (SBDI-1).
Fonte: TST
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário